Citizenship and Immigration Committee on May 13th, 2008

[Karl Flecker, National Director, Anti-Racism and Human Rights Department, Canadian Labour Congress]

Mr. Carrier, as to where that comes from, I attended a technical briefing offered by senior members of Immigration Canada on April 18, in an effort to better understand how the mechanics of this program would operate. As Hassan was pointing out, the minister is going to have the opportunity to make these ministerial instructions for the class of immigrants. We asked how they were going to determine which class of economic immigrant or skilled worker was going to receive the priority attention that is implicit in this bill. The response was that it was going to be something done in coordination with the provinces and the territories and with the employers' input.

We've already seen, in immigration changes over the last 18 months to two years by this government, the creation of the Canadian experience class. We've seen a phenomenal growth in the temporary foreign worker program. James Sutherland, the director of that program, on March 12 acknowledged that in 2007 there were 236,000 applications for guest workers received from employers. In 2006 we had granted permanent residency status to 251,000. There is enough data there to show that decisions on classes of immigrant workers are being made principally by employer groups.

When we pushed the question on April 18 and asked where the opportunity will be and how labour, for example, will be meaningfully involved at the regional level to determine the class of immigrants, the answer was not forthcoming because it hasn't been thought through yet.

Second, immigration, if we're seeing it in a comprehensive way, is not just about employers. It's not just about labour. There is the role of immigration and settlement agencies. There is the role of communities that want to be able to see their needs identified. These are other stakeholders that have to have meaningful input, and clearly, what we have seen so far is that the group that has the ear is the employer group. That is where that's coming from.

[Robert Carrier, Bloc, Alfred-Pellan, QC]

The minister mentioned that the purpose of the bill was to reduce the waiting list of immigration applications. In your opinion, will the bill achieve that objective?

The proposed subsection 87.3(4) states that officers processing an application may "retain, return or otherwise dispose of" that application. That's what's stated in the English version of the bill. Does that mean that we will reject applications without studying them because they don't meet the criteria? Is that how the minister intends to reduce the waiting list?

[Hassan Yussuff]

For the individuals who have submitted an application that's currently in the system, I think it's simply an abuse of power to tell people who have been waiting years—and in many cases, it is years—“Sorry, you have to start over again.” In that regard, they would have to possibly resubmit their application, maybe wait to get their fees refunded by the government, and maybe if they resubmit it, they may or may not meet the categories the government determined they fall into. In other words, the application, for all intents and purposes, could be void. It is highly problematic as to how this going to take place.

From our knowledge of the proposed amendments, it is very unclear, but we're very skeptical, obviously, that those applications that are currently in the system will not be given priority any more and you will have two parallel processes. The government could continue with those applications and follow some process to deal with them over time while it develops a new track to deal with new applications, and then they will determine how fast those new applications will be dealt with concurrently.

[The Chair, Conservative, Norman Doyle]

Thank you.

Do you have a response, Mr. Flecker? And then I'll go to Madam Chow.

[Karl Flecker]

Sure.

There's no question that this is not going to deal with the 925,000 in the backlog. We heard at the technical briefing and also from the senior CIC staff that they hope that of the 925,000, Mohamed and Fatima, let's say, will realize that it might be in their interest if they withdraw their application, if they're able to wait long enough to get their $400 back, if it's forthcoming, and then they have to hope that their new application is going to fit the category that the minister is going to determine.

You have to weigh that against the same plan that the technicians announced, that they're going to send out 50,000 letters as a sample to some of the 925,000 on the list and ask, “Are you alive? Do you still want to try to get here?” Would that simple measure not be a much more effective way to find out if you can thin down 925,000?

[The Chair, Conservative, Norman Doyle]

Madam Chow.

[Olivia Chow, NDP, Trinity—Spadina, ON]

I have in front of me a very interesting report that showed a number of requests from four provinces: British Columbia, Alberta, Saskatchewan, and Manitoba. We need labour, right? We need skilled labour. People kept saying this is the reason we're going to do this.

It's interesting to note the top jobs that are requested by employers under the temporary foreign worker program. In British Columbia, the number one temporary foreign worker position requested is cooks, 1,771. In Alberta, the number of cooks requested is 3,343. In Saskatchewan, the number two position, actually, is cooks, with 167 being requested. In Manitoba, it's cooks again, 197 or thereabouts.

The minister keeps saying we need these doctors; we have to have doctors in Canada. When employers desperately need labour, they go the temporary foreign worker route—which I have a great deal of difficulty with, because if people are good enough to work here, they're good enough to stay here, and they should come in as landed immigrants.

It actually is fascinating to look at this whole area. Do you know what the second area is, in terms of low-skilled occupation? It's babysitters, nannies, and parents' helpers. In Alberta, for example, the request came in, in terms of labour market opinions, for 5,597. For specialist physicians, there are 210—just to give you the contrast in numbers between specialist physicians, babysitters, and chefs.

We do need babysitters and chefs. They do require skill, and they are trained, but we can certainly bring them in as landed immigrants.

It brings me to a point that I want to ask you. The present point system does not really give a whole lot of points, if you're applying for landed immigrant status, to people who are cooks, babysitters, carpenters, people we desperately need in Canada. Nor does it give any points to people who have relatives in Canada. That would allow them to adapt easier.

I hear that you dislike the Bill C-50 immigration changes. You have already said a lot about that. To really fix the situation, should we actually change the point system? If so, in your mind, how can we change the point system?

[Hassan Yussuff]

Here are a couple of quick points.The evidence you are stating regarding the provinces' requests for temporary foreign workers raises, fundamentally, a more serious question about what we're not doing in our country in training individuals to meet the skills needs of the economy.

That comes back to the whole transfer of responsibility from the federal government to the provinces. They have the resources, and yet they are not equipping their people with the skills needed.

What employers are doing, and we're seeing it again, and this needs to be highlighted in this process, is an abuse of the temporary foreign workers program. All you have to do, essentially, is file an application. Most of the procedures that are supposed to be followed by the department are not being followed, and essentially people have been brought in to work for minimum wage, or in some cases worse, and some in situations of abuse. We have tracked it in complaints we have filed with the department.

In regard to changes to the points system, there's no question that the points system brought a little more transparency and fairness to what had existed prior to that, but if there's going to be a thorough review of our immigration system, of course we need to look at it to ensure that if these are the categories employers have identified for which we need to bring in people, it is fair that they be given an equal amount of points, so that they could come into the country. Right now, they would not be qualified, because they're not the ones Canada wants. Essentially, we're mostly looking at skilled immigrants—and highly skilled immigrants, for that matter.

There are many changes we would consider or be supportive of respecting what the points system needs to reflect, given the current challenges we face in our economy, but the reality is that this is not the question we're asked.

I'll also ask Karl to comment on this, based on our knowledge of the temporary foreign workers program.

[Karl Flecker]

Going quickly to the point of your question, there's no question our points system needs a re-examination, particularly when your numbers so clearly expose something going on that actually has a bit of rank to it. The employer demand is for low-skilled or lower-skilled, likely less-waged, less-protected workers.

Yet on the other hand, we have two decades of data showing immigrants who are highly credentialled, who actually have a higher academic standing than most Canadians: 37.5% have a BA or higher degree, compared with Canadian-born citizens at 19.1%. We're seeing the same thing with their kids as well.

Meanwhile, the employers have insisted that we're moving into a knowledge-based economy. They've said that the new area for our dependents is biotech or IT. I have to ask the question: how's Nortel doing? We have these credentialled immigrants; they're living in low-income situations; the system does not work to put them in jobs that are commensurate with their skills.

Meanwhile, your numbers show, and it will not be a surprise to us to see, probably in the near future, yet more changes to the temporary foreign worker program, probably saying that some classes of those immigrants are going to be allowed to bring in their spouses and their children with work permits. I wonder how many of them will suddenly find themselves as cooks and babysitters, working in positions with less protection.

[The Chair, Conservative, Norman Doyle]

Ms. Grewal.

[Nina Grewal, Conservative, Fleetwood—Port Kells, BC]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Thank you both for your presentations.

While the Canadian workforce is aging and the birth rate is declining, is the immigration system filling the resulting skill shortages?

[Hassan Yussuff]

We would argue that most of the skill shortages claimed by employers don't exist. Some of them do, a very small number. In a large number of categories that employers are claiming have a shortage, there's no real shortage.

One point I wanted to make concerning Madam Chow's point about cooks is that a simple way to get cooks is to pay them a higher wage. You'd be surprised how many cooks you'd get if you paid them a higher wage. People are prepared to work. Some people are just not prepared to work for minimum wage.

I think the employers are abusing the system. There's clearly documented evidence, which we have filed with the government, on the temporary foreign workers program; it is there.

The issue, too, about skill shortages, and I think my colleague just made the point, is that all of the immigrants we've been bringing into the country, and we're doing our own research on this, come here highly skilled to begin with; yet they can't find meaningful employment in the areas in which they're qualified.

If you simply bring in more people on demand because we say we need more skilled people, the question is whether you can get them to work in the categories in which you're bringing them in to work in the first place. The government has yet to respond to the failures of our policy; yet we're proceeding with more proposed changes that will meet employers' demands, rather than asking how we give meaningful employment to the people who are already here in this country and can't find meaningful employment.

So yes, our policy to some degree has been a failure, because it does not allow the immigrants who have the qualifications to work in the fields they're qualified to work in.

[Karl Flecker]

I find it interesting that the same department that runs the temporary guest worker program also has a strategic unit that does long-range 10-year forecasting on the Canadian labour market. In October of last year they put out a report called “ A 10-Year Outlook for the Canadian Labour Market”. They said there were “no looming skill shortages 10 years out”, but the same department down the hall running the temporary foreign worker program said there was “a looming skill shortage”.

The same department used a U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics formula to determine the veracity of whether or not we have labour or skill shortages. It's a three-point program and was tested in the U.S. It's been tried in some situations here. You should take a look at the results of it, because the employers' claims for these labour and skills shortages, when put against that formula, demonstrate that somebody's not telling the truth.

On your other point, there's no question our Canadian labour market and our population are dependent on immigration, but doing it in this duplicitous manner with a lack of transparency is not the way to build a country and respect immigrants who are coming here to build their homes and communities.

[Nina Grewal, Conservative, Fleetwood—Port Kells, BC]

I know you have been quite critical of this temporary worker program, but the needed workers are not getting into Canada quickly enough through those regular channels. So will these proposed changes to the immigration act lessen or eliminate the need for temporary workers?

[Hassan Yussuff]

I think that's a question best put to the employers. I don't know what their demands are, and they change by the moment. But the temporary foreign workers program has grown more than anyone would have believed, because it was never intended to do what it's doing. Will these changes lessen the need? I don't see that happening. The minister is using that as an argument.

Our argument to the government has fundamentally been that if there's truly a need for skills in this country, we should increase our immigration quota rather than restrict it. The temporary foreign workers program, for all intents and purposes, should be closed down. It doesn't serve any meaningful purpose in terms of the needs of the country. It's simply a program to abuse and undermine the wages of workers currently in many categories in which employers are bringing in temporary foreign workers. So my answer is very straightforward.

[Nina Grewal, Conservative, Fleetwood—Port Kells, BC]

Mr. Flecker.

[Karl Flecker]

Hassan has answered it very clearly. There's no way it's going to lessen it. Even the government's Canadian experience class initiative, by the technicians' own admission, will bring in no more than 8,000 to 10,000, with a maximum of 20,000 by 2015. The program that is targeting temporary foreign workers in the high-skilled category has such a minuscule number. Meanwhile, an employer can get an application for a guest worker processed within three to five days, and there's no compliance monitoring enforcement mechanism to ensure that well-being, wages, and protections will be extended to those workers.

I think it's very straightforward. Some employers are going to use a huge opening in the fence to take advantage of that.

[Nina Grewal, Conservative, Fleetwood—Port Kells, BC]

Are foreign workers who are entering Canada as permanent residents less likely to be exploited than temporary foreign workers?

[Hassan Yussuff]

I think temporary foreign workers are in a more precarious situation. Their vulnerability is acknowledged by the employers and by the labour contractors who bring them here. If you come here as a permanent resident, you know you have certainty and cannot be deported because of an employer's whim. So I think the abuse of temporary foreign workers will continue, because workers are very much in a precarious situation and they're very unlikely to complain about the situation they're in.

[The Chair, Conservative, Norman Doyle]

There are five seconds left. Like the last panel, we try to get every questioner on who wants to. So there are 15 minutes and I see three questioners who haven't spoken: Mr. Telegdi, Mr. St-Cyr, and Mr. Komarnicki. We'll divide the 15 minutes among those three.

Mr. Telegdi.

[Andrew Telegdi, Liberal, Kitchener—Waterloo, ON]

The government should learn from that.

If I were in the labour movement, I would be concerned about the greater reliance on temporary foreign workers. It reminds me of the history of the Chinese when they were brought in to build the railway. As soon as they were used up, they were considered redundant, and the government did what they could to get rid of them.

Having people come here without their families is totally the wrong way to go. To me, one of the big questions is whether, if you're going to build a nation, you build it through temporary foreign workers or you build it through immigration.

We have a problem with the point system. The point system was designed in such a way that it really doesn't let in the people the economy needs. If you're in the trades or if you are going to come and do hard labour or whatever, you should be able to get into this country, because we need that in society. If you can't find anybody in Canada, then it's legitimate to bring in immigrants to do those jobs. That has been part of history. When you look at most of the temporary foreign worker jobs that are coming in, such as truck drivers, I mean, there's no way a truck driver is going to pass the point system the way it's set up. Australia has much better success with the point system, because they give greater relevance to what the economy needs.

The example that comes to me is that we bring in engineers from Pakistan or India, but they do not get to work as engineers. They're unhappy campers. They quit their jobs. They sold what they had and brought their capital here. Then all of a sudden, they find out that chances are that they will never work as engineers. So we have unhappy campers. On the other hand, if a bricklayer from Portugal comes here, and we have a shortage of bricklayers, he finds a job fairly quickly, and he's happy. We have a system that brings in the engineer who cannot be absorbed and keeps out the bricklayer who could be happy and do well.

Of course, the other big issue is the underground economy for the undocumented worker class. Once you bring in a lot of temporary workers, a lot of those folks aren't going to go home when their visas expire. They're going to join the class of undocumented workers. We saw the Auditor General's report that said that 41,000 people have not been kept track of. And there are a lot more. The numbers are something like half a million. It's asking for trouble.

I'm going to put the question to you: Do we need immigrants or do we need temporary foreign workers?

[Hassan Yussuff]

I've been making the argument for the longest time that what Canada needs is more immigrants. That's the way to build a country. It's also a way to develop your economy.

In the old days, if you were lucky, you got a job and you might spend 20 or 35 years in that workplace. If you were lucky, you would retire and get a pension. The norm these days is that you're likely to go through five, six, and, in some cases more jobs before you retire. In the context of that, people are constantly learning and relearning skills. I think we also need the provincial governments to be more responsive in how they provide training as workers shift from industries and jobs so that they actually have the skills to continue. That's what a nation is supposed to do. We can fill our skills needs in the country by simply relying on stealing workers from other countries, but at some point that's going to come to an end. We're not the only country competing for immigrants. But we continue to be determined to stick with that.

Coming back to your point, specifically and directly, yes, we need to increase our immigration numbers and end the temporary foreign workers program. The program is an abuse. There's no accountability in terms of what laws apply to these workers when they come into the country or whether the provinces are going to enforce their laws to protect these workers on basic stuff such as health and safety and employment standards.

[The Chair, Conservative, Norman Doyle]

We'll go to Mr. St-Cyr.

[Thierry St-Cyr, Bloc, Jeanne-Le Ber, QC]

Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

Thank you for being here today. I'll start by asking a brief and simple question that I've previously put to other panelists. I'd like to know whether your organization was consulted in some way during development of part 6 of Bill C-50.

[Hassan Yussuff]

The answer is no.